White House Tries to Exclude Fox News From Interview
Hard to see how even Media Matters can defend this.
The only way to read this is that the administration was lying when it said White House officials would be available for interview by Fox News. Fortunately, as Allahpundit points out, the WH press corps closed ranks to support Fox News, not just on principle, but to ensure their own access when a Republican sits in the executive mansion.
Again, the more Obama’s administration attacks Fox News, the more Fox News’s stature grows and Teh One’s diminishes.
Cassandra at Villainous Company notes,
The press did the right thing … behind closed doors. But as of the time of this posting I don’t see ABC, MSNBC, or CNN have any plans to inform their readers of today’s events.
This is an outrage that Americans should be concerned about. During the George W. Bush administration, we were constantly told that he wanted to “stifle dissent” and shut down the press. Now, we have a president who actually wants to do these things.
Cross-posted at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.
UPDATE: Anderson Cooper compares Obama with Nixon.
UPDATE x2: Moderate Democrats are concerned about the backlash against them from the White House’s all-out push against critics. The strategy is doomed to failure; criticism of the President, any President, is normal. Expending one’s energy attacking the critics makes the White House look petty and small. Remember, this President promised to bring “a different tone” to Washington and to listen to critics. Stunts like this, as well as bashing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, rightfully concerns voters who thought they were getting something different.
HOTAiR: White House tries to bar Fox News from interviewing pay czar! | DC SMELL REPORT:
[...] Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » White House Tries to Exclude Fox News From Intervi… [...]
23 October 2009, 5:18 amYorkshire:
Poor widdle BO can’t handle FOX News. OH Booo Hooo Hooo. Can anyone spell T H I N S K I N???
23 October 2009, 7:23 amYorkshire:
BO will meet with Castro, Chavez, Kim and Abber-Dabber-do, but Oh Noooooooooooooooo he can’t meet with FOX!
23 October 2009, 7:24 amPerry:
Let’s face facts: FoxNews is the political and communications arm of the GOP. None of us can honestly deny that fact.
That said, the WH made a mistake, which they now realize, as evidenced by the fact that they relented.
So what is the purpose of this post? The purpose is to prolong an already settled dispute.
And don’t forget, folks, the tight control that the Bushies placed on press access to WH affairs. Conservatives only need apply. But never a word from Conservatives about these exclusionary tactics, not one word. So hypocrisy rears it’s nasty head one more time! Here is one example of many!
23 October 2009, 7:49 amYorkshire:
Perry:
Let’s face facts: FoxNews is the political and communications arm of the GOP. None of us can honestly deny that fact.
And don’t forget, folks, the tight control that the Bushies placed on press access to WH affairs. Conservatives only need apply. But never a word from Conservatives about these exclusionary tactics, not one word. So hypocrisy rears is nasty head one more time!
Remind me again, what network did W try to ban and said it wasn’t a news organization? Oh, what net was that? I can’t seem to recall that.
23 October 2009, 7:58 amJeff:
Yorkshire - NBC. Also Helen Thomas.
Bush’s attempts to manipulate and control the media are well-documented, from paying columnists to parrot administration talking points (hello, Armstrong Williams) to having a press secretary tell journalists to “watch what they say and what they do.” You can criticize Obama for blackballing Fox News, and rightfully so, but don’t try to claim that Bush didn’t do exactly the same thing.
23 October 2009, 8:37 amSharon:
Jeff, do you have a link to President Bush barring NBC from White House press conferences? Or Helen Thomas? To my knowledge, the closest President Bush came was not taking a question from Thomas and by ending his own press conference, as opposed to allowing her to do it. That is hardly in the same league with trying to dictate who is and isn’t included in the White House press pool.
You may be talking about this post from Media Matters, which really does stretch the definition of “barring” or “banning” news organizations. There’s a big difference between the Speaker of the House declaring that s/he isn’t going to appear here or there. It’s a different situation when the President of All of Us tries to determine who gets to attend the typical WH briefings.
All presidents complain about reporters, that part of this charade is not new. This White House, more than any other, is trying to control what the press can and cannot say about it. The pool reporters are right to be nervous about this, since it sets a precedent that, I suspect Eric Boehlert wouldn’t like very much when a Republican occupies the White House.
23 October 2009, 8:54 amPerry:
Sharon:“This White House, more than any other, is trying to control what the press can and cannot say about it.”
The WH admitted to their mistake, and rescinded their ban of Fox, the communication arm of the GOP, and certainly the most partisan “news” organization going.
Fox certainly should get push-back from the Obama administration, since that is part of the national debate, but they should not have been banned, and now they are not banned. The WH adjusted! But no, the party of “NO” insists on keeping this going.
Now Sharon, how many mistakes did Cheney/Bush admit to and rescind?
Worse, what do you think of Cheney doing his best to undermine Obama’s policy on Afghanistan?
You people are extremists who too quickly forget the past and too easily put ideology over country. What good comes from that?
23 October 2009, 9:46 amSharon:
Where did the White House admit its mistake?
Your not-so-clever attempt to call Fox News a communications arm of the GOP is childish and stupid, Perry. The purpose of a free press is to challenge the powers that be. I’m certain you were all for this when an administration you disliked was in the WH.
Again, the President of All of Us promised a “new tone” in Washington. Attacking the press for doing its job isn’t a new tone. It’s a sinister, old tone.
23 October 2009, 10:08 amJeff:
Sharon, you’re right that Bush never moved to ban NBC and Ms. Thomas, but the criticisms of both from the Bush administration echo those issued against Fox News from this administration. And now that Fox News isn’t banned from the White House anymore, they’re on equal footing.
Media Matters’ link (which you helpfully provided) does point out that John Sidney McCain III actually banned several journalists from his plane.
Oh, and let’s not forget Dan Rather, who Bush and other conservatives basically got fired after he made a mistake that made Bush look bad.
All that having been said, I don’t see a whole lot coming from the Obama administration that didn’t come from the Bush administration, and the Bush administration used a whole lot more manipulative techniques. They may not have banned reporters, but they did give Jeff Gannon press credentials and have FEMA and Pentagon employees pose as legit reporters and analysts.
23 October 2009, 10:14 amJeff:
Again, the President of All of Us promised a “new tone” in Washington.
So did the last guy.
23 October 2009, 10:16 amHube:
Perry is, of course, in the “progressive” tank yet again.
First, will Perry admit that, if Fox is “the political and communications arm of the GOP,” then MSNBC is “the political and communications arm of the Democrat Party?”
Second, the White House did NOT admit its mistake. It relented ONLY because the other press arms objected to Fox being excluded.
Third, the Bush WH did indeed restrict certain outlets at times from various conferences, reports, etc. But the difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush did NOT actively seek to destroy a network as “illegitimate” because of its bias/point-of-view.
Fourth, WTF does Bush and Cheney’s policies (aside from the media) have anything to do w/this discussion?
Fifth, notice how Perry ventures into hypocrite territory (again) by resorting to personal attacks. “You people are extremists.” Recall how weak-kneed Perry is always the first to moan and whine about such attacks from his opponents. But hey, maybe it’s because he is virtually fossilized at this point in time in his life.
23 October 2009, 10:23 amDave A:
Hurray for a free press. When does the executive branch get to determine what is legitimate news coverage and what is not? For an administration that prides itself on being open to diversity it is surprisingly non-tolerant of critics that don’t dance to their tune. I am genuinely surprised. I thought this administration was above such gross hypocrisy.
23 October 2009, 10:50 amSharon:
So did the last guy.
This argument never worked with my mom, either.
23 October 2009, 11:01 amYorkshire:
Sharon:
So did the last guy.
This argument never worked with my mom, either.
And the last guy was in the habit of inviting the other side over for dinner and a movie, you know, like Ted Kennedy. And the last guy worked with Teddy K on a few pet Kennedy bills. BO has Reid lock Republicans out of Healthcare discussion. A real bi-partisan administration going on here. As transparent as granite.
BTW, weren’t we promised that Healthcare Legislation would be open and on C-SPAN, not behind locked doors.
23 October 2009, 11:10 amHube:
Dave A writes: For an administration that prides itself on being open to diversity it is surprisingly non-tolerant of critics that don’t dance to their tune.
This is the very essence of modern liberalism, Dave. Because [modern] liberals believe that their way is, without doubt, the right one. Therefore, to deviate from this belief is akin to heresy. And you know what should be done to heretics, right?
23 October 2009, 11:10 amJeff:
Sharon - for some reason the comment preceding my snarky one is stuck in moderation. Believe me, I don’t think that justifies Obama’s behavior.
This is the very essence of modern
liberalismconservatism, Dave. Because [modern]liberalsconservatives believe that their way is, without doubt, the right one. Therefore, to deviate from this belief is akin to heresy. And you know what should be done to heretics, right?There, Hube, fixed that for you. It kind of amuses me when conservatives call liberals closed-minded and dogmatic. Yeah, there are liberals who are closed-minded and dogmatic (I knew some who even took pride in this), but conservatism’s got far more dogmatic thinkers per capita, at least in my experience.
(Though to be honest with you, I don’t think that there are all that many dogmatic thinkers on either side…)
23 October 2009, 12:06 pmHube:
Jeff: Where in your experience are conservatives w/differing POVs ostracized like libs do with their own?
23 October 2009, 12:13 pmMAS:
It is gonna take all weekend to get over CNN showing some backbone here.
This has been such a bizarre week that one can only wonder what else is Obama going to do. At least this makes the news worth watcing.
The Chosen One said He wasn’t going to ‘lose any sleep’ over freezing out Fox News. When He needs Fox to reach out to moderate voters in 2012, He will be singing from a different song sheet. BO needs to find some humility and thicken his skin.
23 October 2009, 12:18 pmJeff:
Hube: Olympia Snowe and the rock-salt thing come to mind immediately, just because it’s a fairly recent example. This space’s treatment of Arlen Specter when he was a professed and practicing conservative also comes to mind. And I’ve never felt ostracized by my fellow liberals when I disagree with them (for example, on issues like the federal minimum wage). Contrast the right’s treatment of Snowe with the left’s treatment of Ben Nelson, and you have your answer.
But like I said, I don’t think it’s as widespread as it seems in the news. In the news a lot of times people are just playing politics. Disagreements within a party are natural, as is the desire to keep a party voting bloc together. Among everyday people, though, disagreements among ideological peers are more likely to be accepted than not, and in my experience that’s true among liberals and conservatives.
23 October 2009, 12:50 pmYorkshire:
Jeff:
This space’s treatment of Arlen Specter when he was a professed and practicing conservative also comes to mind.
If Arlen had switched to Dem out of principle is one thing, but he switched to Dem because he was going to have to defend his seat in the Primary and was going to lose. He switched to keep his butt in Washington, not out of principle.
And Specter was not a professed and practicing Conservative. He was a professed and practicing liberal who switch to Republican to win the Senate seat originally. He’s never been a conservative.
Remember in Clinton’s Impeachment Trial, he voted Present according to Scottish Law.
23 October 2009, 12:59 pmEric:
BS. FOX has a news side, and an opinion side. The opinion side tends to be conservative, more so with the addition of Beck and the departure of Colmes from the former Hannity and Colmes show. But their hard news side is eminently fair, as anyone who’s watched Chris Wallace, Bret Baier or Brit Hume can attest. It’s like a newspaper that has a news section and an opinion section.
23 October 2009, 2:24 pmropelight:
Perry, Let’s face facts: FOX NEWS is no more the political and communications arm of the GOP than you are. None of us can honestly deny that fact, but then honesty just isn’t your strong suit.
23 October 2009, 2:32 pmEric:
I think it’s great that Cheney is speaking out! It’s time someone responded to the lies and BS the Obama Admin has been spreading about the Bush Admin.
23 October 2009, 2:34 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
But their hard news side is eminently fair, as anyone who’s watched Chris Wallace, Bret Baier or Brit Hume can attest.
Nope.
Hell - they’ve even admitted their bias.
Fox News in the USA is no more objective than Pravda was in the USSR - and those are the facts.
23 October 2009, 2:41 pmSharon:
Sharon, you’re right that Bush never moved to ban NBC and Ms. Thomas, but the criticisms of both from the Bush administration echo those issued against Fox News from this administration. And now that Fox News isn’t banned from the White House anymore, they’re on equal footing.
I think the fact that GWB didn’t try to get anyone removed from the WH press corps is the point. There’s nothing wrong with this administration (or any administration) with taking offense at less than glowing reporting. But the key here is that the Obama administration is concerned that Fox scoops are beginning to be reported in places like the NYT and WaPo. We have a WH that is very concerned with controlling the message, but it can’t control reporting.
Regardless of political affiliation, reporters look for scoops. That’s what they are taught to do. But as Obama officials push back at one area of the press, one people with seasoned and respected reporters well-known by other members of the corps, it actually creates more negative press for the POTUS. This is considerably different from any argument about President Bush, Jeff Gannon and political analysts.
23 October 2009, 2:44 pmHube:
Jeff: Please, man. Snowe isn’t ostracized to the point of not talking to her and/or wishing ill of her. And Ben Nelson? How about Joe Lieberman? How did the left-wing press and blogs treat him? And look no further than the left-dominated college environment for all the examples you wish.
23 October 2009, 2:48 pmHube:
Fox News in the USA is no more objective than Pravda was in the USSR - and those are the facts.
Yeah — those sound like “facts” found in Pravda! Face it — Fox has a bias, yes. But it is no more biased than any other network when it comes to news coverage. Period.
23 October 2009, 2:49 pmHube:
Oh, and FAIR is a left-leaning watchdog. Funny you didn’t note that, Phoe. I’m certain the Media Research Center will provide you with counter-examples.
23 October 2009, 2:50 pmSharon:
Shouldn’t Pho get (a) an organization that isn’t liberal and (b) date more recent than 2001?
23 October 2009, 2:58 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Oh, and FAIR is a left-leaning watchdog
They cited actual *facts*. I have to laugh when you dismiss factual criticism about Fox’s conservative bias on the basis that organisations are “liberally-biased”.
23 October 2009, 3:39 pmJeff:
Hube, I’ve been in a college environment for the past 10 years (undergrad and grad school, two different institutions) and have experienced a liberal that intimidated alternative points of view exactly once. Hardly a dogmatic echo chamber. (Caveat: both colleges are located in the South, and I’m a chemical engineering student, though I did have a history major in undergrad.)
Lieberman’s a good example, but I could just as easily cite upcoming intra-conservative battles like Crist/Rubio or Scozzafava/Hoffman as counterexamples. And the right-wing press’ hatred of Lindsey Graham is truly bizarre, considering he’s about as conservative as they come… And sure, Lieberman’s been criticized harshly, but he has hardly been ostracized. He’s got a chairmanship, for Chrissakes… and we’re talking about a guy who all but called his own party traitors here, and who openly campaigned for John Sidney McCain III.
If you’re looking for cases of political retribution for straying from the official party line, those are a dime a dozen on both sides of the aisle. But if you’re looking for cases where everyday liberals or conservatives have actively ostracized someone for not hewing to a specific ideological agenda… good luck with that. I’m not sure it exists in the volume you think it does.
23 October 2009, 3:45 pmJeff:
Hube, Sharon - neither of you actually responded to Phoe’s criticism… attacking the source of information doesn’t count as an actual response.
23 October 2009, 3:47 pmEric:
FAIR is a far left group, and are anything but “Fair”. Quoting them would be like me citing Rush Limbaugh as an unbiased source.
23 October 2009, 4:08 pmEric:
Face it - the Left hates FOX in large part because, unlike the rest of the media, they break stories that make them look bad. Who exposed ACORN? Who made Van Jones look like a loon? who was onto the Rev. Wright a year before everyone else? Obama did a good job selling himself to the voters as a “Centrist” and moderate Democrat, and FOX has been showing the other, more radical side of his admin.
It’s like turning on the light and watching the roaches scurry under the cupboards.
23 October 2009, 5:02 pmPerry:
Phoeniciean commented: They cited actual *facts*. I have to laugh when you dismiss factual criticism about Fox’s conservative bias on the basis that organisations are “liberally-biased”.”
Eric’s response: “FAIR is a far left group, and are anything but “Fair”. Quoting them would be like me citing Rush Limbaugh as an unbiased source.”
Classic attack the messenger instead of countering any of the contents of the Fair document. Very weak, Eric.
I find it revealing that the radicals on this blog, (Raise your hand if you are one!), are real quick to jump all over Obama, yet conveniently forget the extraordinary problems that their kind have caused this country.
The damaged economy and the war damage we have inflicted are obvious to everyone except to those of our radicals who chose to be in denial. Not only that, they forget their past while proposing to repeat their policies, or lack thereof, and proceed to shoot down those who are trying to help us to recover.
They would have us believe that accepting responsibility and being accountable is a virtue, a virtue that they choose not to practice themselves. It is like they have no qualms about sending in more troops to Afghanistan, but insist on a volunteer military so that they and theirs can opt out. Put a draft in place, then we would see the war wind down quite quickly. That’s my straw man of the day!
23 October 2009, 5:42 pmSharon:
They cited actual *facts*. I have to laugh when you dismiss factual criticism about Fox’s conservative bias on the basis that organisations are “liberally-biased”.
It’s more like they cherry-picked facts that agreed with their premise during a time period, immediately following an election, when members of the President’s party would have a very high profile. I tried to find a similar study of the 3 broadcast networks (not cable programs) to compare, but couldn’t find one. More to the point, FAIR is as partisan as Media Matters and MoveOn.org, and works hard to ignore media bias that doesn’t prove its point. If you want us to take your argument seriously, you need to bring another source.
Hube, Sharon - neither of you actually responded to Phoe’s criticism… attacking the source of information doesn’t count as an actual response.
Actually, it is a response. Reading a FAIR article requires a large canister of salt. Pho cites a study that is nearly a decade old of one program just after GWB’s inauguration. There could be plenty of reasons so many more Republicans than Democrats appear on that program, including the fact that it was the first time in eight years Republicans controlled the WH and had personnel to go on such programs. Again, I’d be curious to know about the number of Democrats that show up on the nightly news on ABC, NBC and CBS in the first five months of Obama’s presidency.
BTW, Jeff, I happen to agree with your premise that there isn’t a lot of ostracizing moderates in either party. That doesn’t mean the leadership or the base likes them. I, personally, would rather have enough moderates in my party to keep control, regardless of if they vote with conservatives all the time. Control of the legislative process is the key to getting anything done that you want done.
Eric, the Left hates Fox News because “We report, you decide” challenged their worldview that the MSM was not biased. It wasn’t like the rest of America hadn’t noticed. But I expect many more attempts by the shrill Left to silence or marginalize the only news organization questioning their agenda as more dirt is uncovered. We’re only eight months into Teh One’s presidency. There’s lots of time.
23 October 2009, 5:59 pmSharon:
I find it revealing that the radicals on this blog, (Raise your hand if you are one!), are real quick to jump all over Obama, yet conveniently forget the extraordinary problems that their kind have caused this country.
I find it revealing that Perry can’t remember which party ran Congress for most of the last 50 years and, in particular, the last 2.
23 October 2009, 6:01 pmPerry:
Sharon has not countered Phoenician’s facts, unless somehow an old fact doesn’t count as a fact.
23 October 2009, 6:07 pmPerry:
Voila, Sharon just raised her hand!!
Interesting that Sharon forgot about the power of the veto the last two years before Obama, another example here of her selective memory at play!
23 October 2009, 6:12 pmSharon:
Sharon has not countered Phoenician’s facts, unless somehow an old fact doesn’t count as a fact.
Again, Perry, without other information, there’s nothing to say about what he posted. It’s cherry-picked. Maybe FAIR did a similar study of network newscasts during the first five months of the Obama administration, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Interesting that Sharon forgot about the power of the veto the last two years before Obama, another example here of her selective memory at play!
Perry, seriously, are you, like, 11? Every comment you make sounds like something my son says.
Again, you like to forget which party ran Congress for most of the last 50 years. It wasn’t Republicans. I’m not going to defend pork barrel spending by Republicans, but it was $787 billion.
23 October 2009, 6:29 pmPerry:
No, Sharon, that’s not it. The point is, anybody can cherry pick, and most do, to buttress their position. So the debate then should be about the facts, then attempting to bring in the context. That’s not what you, or anyone else yet has done with Phoenician’s post.
What’s your point about the Dems having control of Congress for the two years before Obama? You know about the veto, but neglected to bring that in.
What’s your point about the Dems being the predominant party in Congress for the last 50 years?
My observation is that all-in-all, the Dems have been much more cooperative with a Repub President, like Reagan, like Bush-41, like Bush-43, than your party has been with, say, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama.
It would be helpful, especially now, to work together in Congress to make policy. Obama has extended his hand. Where is the GOP? Answer: Apoplectic!
23 October 2009, 6:48 pmPerry:
Now back to the topic. David Brock of Media Matters has leveled some serious charges against FoxNews regarding what they have said about President Obama and the Dems, among them being the following:
“• Compared the President of the United States, members of Congress and progressive leaders to Nazis and genocidal dictators such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong;
• Referred to President Barack Obama as a racist who has a “deep seeded hatred for white people”;
• Repeated calls for revolution in the supposed defense of liberty;
• Simulated the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi on air;
• Routinely insinuated that the Obama administration and Democratic Congress are destroying the United States as we know it.”
I suggest that you FoxNews lovers review the entire detailed piece, which you will find right here.
Is it any wonder that the Obama administration and the Dems should be concerned?
We should be debating these facts, the FoxNews context, and the impact of these attacks, not just on Obama and the Dems, but on our nation.
This is demonization at it’s worst, a continuation of the legacy of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, and now a black mark on the nature of our current political discourse.
23 October 2009, 7:11 pmYorkshire:
Well, I got a good laugh. If Pho wants to use FAIR as a source, then I have a great question for Pho. FAIR’s website says it’s all for the 1st Amendment and defending news outlets from influence. So, for the last few weeks, where was FAIR in this dispute the White House started with FOX? Like No Where. But then again, I would expect that when one of the main supporters is Noam Chomsky and Phil Donahue. Here, read the Unbiased thinking FAIR has.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100
23 October 2009, 7:15 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
It’s more like they cherry-picked facts that agreed with their premise during a time period, immediately following an election, when members of the President’s party would have a very high profile. I tried to find a similar study of the 3 broadcast networks (not cable programs) to compare, but couldn’t find one.
Alas, Sharon, poor dear - you may not have noticed that they included a comparison to CNN for the same period.
FAIR’s website says it’s all for the 1st Amendment and defending news outlets from influence. So, for the last few weeks, where was FAIR in this dispute the White House started with FOX
i, Fox isn’t a news outlet. It’s a propaganda outfit posing as a news outfit.
ii, Refusing to cooperate with a private organisation is not a violation of the First Amendment. Personally, I’d be instructing every government department to no longer include Fox on their press releases, no longer credential Fox journalists, and to treat Fox as no different from your average person on the street.
23 October 2009, 8:29 pmOtherDana:
Let’s face facts: FoxNews is the political and communications arm of the GOP. None of us can honestly deny that fact.
I can honestly deny it. And I do. And on top of that, I think your assumption is hogwash.
See how easy that is.
23 October 2009, 8:53 pmOtherDana:
…and might I remind you of our President’s own words from this year,
“I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that’s part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we’re not supposed to all be in lock step here.”
23 October 2009, 8:56 pmYorkshire:
Phoe’s Chance At Comedy Again:
You did say you write stand-up stuff:
FAIR’s website says it’s all for the 1st Amendment and defending news outlets from influence. So, for the last few weeks, where was FAIR in this dispute the White House started with FOX
i, Fox isn’t a news outlet. It’s a propaganda outfit posing as a news outfit.
ii, Refusing to cooperate with a private organisation is not a violation of the First Amendment. Personally, I’d be instructing every government department to no longer include Fox on their press releases, no longer credential Fox journalists, and to treat Fox as no different from your average person on the street.
So when did you incorporate i. & ii. into your comedy skit? I think ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS confirmed yesterday FOX is a legitimate News org. The Pool of reporters said all of us, or none of us. Keep writing, I enjoy the methods of twisting things to fit your paradigm. Your’s is apparently far left!
23 October 2009, 8:59 pmOtherDana:
Why Obama could be channeling Doc Holiday (at least the Doc in Tombstone),
“It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.”
23 October 2009, 9:00 pmSharon:
Perry, most of the examples in Brooks’ column come from commentators. Those are not reporters, which every journalist covering the White House understands and accepts.
The funny part about this whole “it’s a propaganda outfit” nonsense is that, when the First Amendment was written, all newspapers were comfortably opinionated in their presentation of the news. IOW, even if you think the RNC pays Fox News for its reporting, Fox News is still protected by the First Amendment. What Pho and Perry are suggesting are precisely the reasons we have a First Amendment.
Secondly, Fox News is part of the White House Press Association, which, oddly enough, was created when Congress wanted to decide which reporters got to cover President Woodrow Wilson. It’s a bit amusing watching liberals, who are supposed to favor free speech and a free press, are the ones applauding any attempt to stifle the same. As Tucker Carlson points out, the White House isn’t angry because Fox News is conservative. It’s because Fox News has embarrassed President Obama with revelations about the self-proclaimed communist Van Jones, the unethical behavior of Kevin Jennings, the outrageous behavior of ACORN, and the Mao-lovin’ of Anita Dunn. This is a president who ran as a centrist, yet has many, many radical connections. Each scoop makes Barack Obama look more extreme, and as the rest of the Washington press corps begins picking up these stories, his administration becomes more desperate to scapegoat the journalists who have the audacity to practice journalism.
23 October 2009, 9:13 pmPerry:
Sharon characterizes her FoxNews thusly: “It’s because Fox News has embarrassed President Obama with revelations about the self-proclaimed communist Van Jones, the unethical behavior of Kevin Jennings, the outrageous behavior of ACORN, and the Mao-lovin’ of Anita Dunn.”
You, Sharon, and FoxNews sound exactly like the late Senator Joseph McCarthy!
This kind of garbage was sick politics then, and it is sick politics now!
Take a look at what FoxNews executives says about itself: “Fox CEO Roger Ailes described Fox News’ fight against the Obama administration as “the Alamo.” Fox’s senior vice president for news, Bill Shine, said the network was “the voice of the opposition.”
That’s a pretty clear admission, isn’t it. Even Sharon cannot refute it, because, well, there it is!
Here is a specific example, one of many I could list here: “Special Report (6-7 p.m. ET)
A recent study coordinated by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that on Special Report with Bret Baier – the closest thing Fox has to a straight newscast – 77 percent of its coverage of President Obama was negative, and only 23 percent positive – twice as negative as the network news channels. As an example of this: on June 29, Baier falsely suggested that Obama has cited Canada’s medical system as a “possible model” even though Obama has explicitly rejected a Canadian-style health care system.”
So there, other Dana, will you now agree that FoxNews is a communication arm of the GOP, or do you want more proof?
23 October 2009, 9:37 pmHarrison:
Egg, meet Obama’s face. Obama’s face, meet Egg. They will soon be good friends.
23 October 2009, 9:39 pmSharon:
What are you talking about, Perry? Because Fox News provides “the opposition” to Barack Obama, that makes them a wing of the Republican Party? Did you feel the same way about MSNBC?
Your arguments amount to this: because other news outlets gave Barack Obama a free pass, Fox News must be biased because they didn’t. Is that actually the argument you think is logical?
23 October 2009, 9:47 pmSharon:
You, Sharon, and FoxNews sound exactly like the late Senator Joseph McCarthy!
What, so telling the truth about Obama administration officials and organizations which support Obama amounts to red-baiting? Shouldn’t you be concerned about radicals running areas of the White House? And weren’t you one of those up in arms about neocons in the White House?
23 October 2009, 9:52 pmYorkshire:
Sharon:
You, Sharon, and FoxNews sound exactly like the late Senator Joseph McCarthy!
What, so telling the truth about Obama administration officials and organizations which support Obama amounts to red-baiting? Shouldn’t you be concerned about radicals running areas of the White House? And weren’t you one of those up in arms about neocons in the White House?
Their OX is being gored and gutted and they have no defense against it. Remember, it was BO himself who said he sought out the Radical Students and Marxists Professors in College.
23 October 2009, 10:11 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Hey, Perry, what about that CNN reporter chick who stated on national news that the Chicago Tea Party was, in part, anti-CNN? And what about her insinuation that it was a violent mob? Or are you going to claim you never saw that, either? Along with your claims that you never saw anything about Bush=Hitler, hoping Cheney’s heart would give out, hoping that Thomas would eat lots of eggs and get heavy cholesterol since Blacks are more prone to that issue so Thomas would die?
Perry, you “never saw” and “never heard” anything you never want to see and never want to hear. Otherwise, your “Helen Keller” partisanship would splat all over my windshield. And I don’t want that since my washer doesn’t work well. And, besides, you know what happens when you try to clean dragonfly juice off your windshield at highway speeds?
23 October 2009, 11:15 pmJohn Hitchcock:
CNN tried to use copyright law and violate the “fair use” clause to hide the real reporting but succeeded in sending that real reporting viral.
23 October 2009, 11:17 pmOther Dana:
A recent study coordinated by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that on Special Report with Bret Baier – the closest thing Fox has to a straight newscast – 77 percent of its coverage of President Obama was negative, and only 23 percent positive – twice as negative as the network news channels.”
Oh Perry, citing Media Matters are we…that non-biased, non-partisan objective *real* news outlet???? Heh.
So are we to conclude from the above quote that because 77% of it’s coverage of the President was negative that that equates to being an arm of the GOP? What if the President just sucks that much? Is that possible? And do you really believe that Fox remotely *needs* the Republican party for, well, anything? Step back and look at this more clearly - Fox does not need the GOP for anything and a multi-billion dollar company with a shark like Ailes at the helm, carries water for no one.
“As an example of this: on June 29, Baier falsely suggested that Obama has cited Canada’s medical system as a “possible model” even though Obama has explicitly rejected a Canadian-style health care system.
If you read the full quote, it goes on to say something a bit different. It might be at the most finessed but does not state that Baier explicitly claimed the President himself was looking at the Canadian model for health care. Rather that “some” in Washington were. But of course, we shouldn’t cherry pick, should we, Perry?
On the June 29 edition of Fox News’ Special Report, host Bret Baier stated that “President Obama spent a good deal of time at that news conference [on June 23] talking about health care reform, and Canada’s medical system has been cited as a possible model.” Correspondent Molly Line later stated during her subsequent report that “some in Washington” are “look[ing] north for ideas.” But neither Baier nor Line noted that Obama has explicitly rejected a Canadian-style health care system.
So I must have missed it, but what do you think of your President’s statement in light of his current war on Fox?
“I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that’s part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we’re not supposed to all be in lock step here.”
23 October 2009, 11:44 pmIndependent:
To be honest, I actually think democrats are more tyrannical than republicans, although both are corrupt for all of us. Now, the president is trying to keep the news from us. First it will be Fox, then Drudge….whose next? And they say they don’t have an enemies list…well Fox must be on some list.
Just read a new, underground book just out & it’s powerful. It’s a small town in America that stands up to D.C.’s corrupt politicans & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. I recommend it to everyone cause it’s our country they are taking away from us. Power to the People!!
23 October 2009, 11:45 pmhttp://www.booksbyoliver.com
Other Dana:
A question I have (for anyone) is; if Fox is not a *real* news organization, why does this administration spend so much time bringing them up, attempt to delegitimatize them, and try so hard to make others believe they are irrelevant? Aren’t they already these things in the eyes of the left? It seem so pathetically redundant.
(It’s the same behavior they evidence toward Rush but the same questions remain: to sum up, if these entities are so utterly irrelevant and meaningless, why do they occupy the minds and mouths of so many?
24 October 2009, 12:30 amblubonnet:
Oh, for God’s sake, look at both perspectives.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/maddow-and-olbermann-right-wing-freak-out
24 October 2009, 2:25 amJohn Hitchcock:
There’s a reason Olbermann felt a tingle down his leg whenever Obama spoke: Olbermann is incontinent. And there’s a reason Maddow is more properly called MadCow.
24 October 2009, 2:47 amNangleator:
I’m sure Fox is as fair and balanced as this site. But they don’t have to be: http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public
24 October 2009, 8:25 amSharon:
Nangleator,
That’s an interesting article, but I had a similar experience when I worked in the newsroom of the local paper here, and it definitely wasn’t Fox News. The point being that editors often do have agendas and want certain stories that say certain things. We’d like to think journalists are above such tawdry things, but Dan Rather’s fake news report on GWB tells a different story.
I could link to any of a dozen videos where Keith Olbermann said things about President Bush that are far worse than calling him a racist. As for Rachel Maddow, she lies, and when she isn’t lying, she is mischaracterizing. My personal favorite was when she tried to define “Bush Derangement Syndrome” as being people saying, “he started 2 wars.” There are actually idiots out there who think that way, but it’s hard to believe.
Other Dana,
I’ve answered why the Obama administration is obsessed with Fox News. Part of it is the need for a boogeyman to demonize. This is why we’ve seen BO bringing up that he “inherited” this mess, again. His poll numbers have dropped faster than any president in history (unsurprising, since he promised everything and delivered nothing), and needs some raw meat for his base. So, he’s fighting with the ghost of GWB, he’s fighting with talk radio hosts and he’s fighting with Fox News. It plays well to the moonbats, but really diminishes the office of the presidency.
More to the point, BO is frightened of Fox News’s stories going viral. Van Jones was a Truther and an avowed communist, at a time when Teh One was trying to frame himself as a centrist and above the fight. ACORN, which gave much money to BO and “helped” with get out the vote drives, is shown as a con game by a couple of kids. And this isn’t even getting to the anger and frustration expressed towards BO and Congress over Obamacare.
David Corn, no friend of conservatives, has made the point that BO’s strategy elevates Fox News to a level of importance that is dangerous to this president. His immaturity and inability to countenance dissent is unbecoming and will be a wonderful tool against him in 2012.
24 October 2009, 9:33 amPerry:
Sharon obfuscates again: “Perry: You, Sharon, and FoxNews sound exactly like the late Senator Joseph McCarthy!
Sharon: What, so telling the truth about Obama administration officials and organizations which support Obama amounts to red-baiting? Shouldn’t you be concerned about radicals running areas of the White House? And weren’t you one of those up in arms about neocons in the White House?”
Sharon, first please understand, it was not red baiting that McCarthy did that was so egregious, it was guilt by association.
You conservative extremists have been using the same ploy, guilt by association, against Obama ever since he surfaced as a significant threat to your neocon political hegemony, the latest being the FoxNews vendetta against some of Obama’s staff and advisers.
With the neocons in the WH, they were extremists who promoted preemptive warfare in the Middle East, so there was no guilt by association there, simply guilt by action!
Now please list for me the extreme behavior that the Obama people have done during their time in the WH, you know, those who have been targeted by Glenn Beck and the FoxNews tyrants.
The distinction between neocons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Pearl, Gaffney, and Kristol, and the aforementioned Obama advisers, is obvious to all except the conservative extremists on here, like you Sharon.
24 October 2009, 9:34 amPerry:
other Dana:
One really doesn’t need a Media Matters survey to conclude the obvious, that FoxNews is the communications arm of the GOP. Your denial of the obvious is not convincing to me, just as my pointing out the obvious is not convincing to you. So there we are!
I think this pretty well sums up the FoxNews threat:
“Since the election of Barack Obama, the Fox News Channel has transformed itself into something truly unprecedented: a lethal 24/7 partisan political operation with an instantaneous national reach. Fox has declared war on this White House, the majority in the United States Congress, and progressive organizations and activists. For Fox News, victory is defined as the destruction of both the Obama administration and the entire progressive policy agenda. Fox News host Glenn Beck predicted last week that he will soon “take the administration down.”"
h/t: David Brock
Take the adminsitration down? Yes, that is exactly what Glenn Beck said. And you conservative extremists support this rhetoric? Yes, you most wholeheartedly do!
In my view, this is tantamount to an insurgency, a revolution, a coup. This is not the American/Constitutional way to change an elected government! Obama is your President too.
This FoxNews is radical stuff folks! You ought not to support it for one second!
24 October 2009, 9:55 amSharon:
Perry, you idiot, McCarthyism wasn’t about guilt by association, unless you meant running around with communists and being a member of the CPUSA probably made you one.
In Van Jones’s case, he’s a Truther and a self-avowed communist. Those aren’t things somebody made up about him, nor is it “guilt by association.” And President Obama had him in charge of policy relating to environmental policy and green jobs. Do I need to run down what the White House has put out about these policies? Or do we have to wait until some Van Jones-inspired policy blows up before we can criticize a Truther for being a nut?
It matters who is in his cabinet, Perry. It matters what their guiding philosophies are, just as much as it mattered when GWB was in office. I highly doubt you were so sanguine about Republicans in GWB’s cabinet even before they had done anything. So, yes, I call hypocrisy on this stupidity.
Fox News is a news network that has very popular opinion shows on it. MSNBC is a news network with some not-very-popular opinion shows on it. I honestly doubt you were terribly concerned about Keith Olbermann’s rants against President Bush, nor did you find it extremist or disgraceful.
24 October 2009, 10:23 amYou are correct that Barack Obama is my president, too. That’s why I am perfectly qualified to criticize his policies. Like censorship.
Jeff:
This entire conversation is becoming surreal, and a case study in what happens when people forget history. Sure, Fox News and MSNBC and whatever are probably biased. Haven’t heard anyone deny that Fox News is a conservative-leaning news organization or that MSNBC has started to lean liberal in the past few years. But guess what? For most of our history, news outlets were unabashedly biased. Before Rupert Murdoch there were Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. From a historical perspective “objective journalism” is the exception, not the rule. It is a relatively recent, almost uniquely American, innovation.
Look at other countries’ presses, the UK’s in particular. There, most news sources are biased - perhaps the most well-respected British news source, The Economist, is notoriously right-leaning. Israel has two main dailies - a conservative one (Jerusalem Post) and a liberal one (Ha’aretz). So let’s stop pretending that unbiased, objective journalism is some sort of gold standard to which we all must aspire. Fox News and MSNBC make their biases rather clear, and we all ought to give thanks for that.
(A side note - we shouldn’t dismiss news from sources on the other side of the aisle, either. Sharon, Yorkshire - FAIR might be liberal, but that doesn’t make its reporting and analysis illegitimate. Phoe, Perry - same goes for Fox News. Just because I don’t give a rat’s ass about ACORN or Van Jones’ loose lips doesn’t mean Fox isn’t legit journalism.)
24 October 2009, 10:38 amDana Pico:
I’m coming late to this party, and haven’t made it through all of the comments yet. But Perry wrote:
Yes, some of honestly can deny that, because it is an opinion held by some who are trying to get people to stop listening to Fox. It should be recalled that, during the 1990s, CNN was frequently derided as standing for the “Clinton News Network,” because of its never-ending sycophancy concerning President Clinton — except, of course, when it became the “all OJ, all the time” network.
CNN’s coverage of the Democrats was best described by the adjective “fawning,” but I doubt very much that Perry would have writen, “Let’s face facts: CNN is the political and communications arm of the Democratic Party. None of us can honestly deny that fact.”
Fox News has some definite opinion shows: O’Reilly and Hannity come to mind. What of it? Do our friends on the left say that MSNBC is “the political and communications arm of the Democratioc Party” for the Olberman and Maddow shows, both just as opinionated, but from the opposite end of the political spectrum?
During the eight great years of the Bush Administration, I never noted any attempts to shut down CNN or MSNBC or Air America — though Air America was failing of its own accord. The fairly liberally oriented newspaper industry was going down the tubes, albeit slowly, but that was because of the fact newspapers are, in the end, eighteenth century technology.
Yet, now that the Democrats have come into power, they have been attacking Fox News, because Fox doesn’t parrot Democratic Party talking points, and trying to find ways — think the “Fairness Doctrine” — to stifle popular radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Why is it the president our friends on the left so often called a fascist never tried to stifle dissent, but the great liberal president we have today is?
24 October 2009, 11:25 amDana Pico:
Perry asked:
They didn’t make any to which to admit.
24 October 2009, 11:28 amSharon:
Jeff,
I made the point up-thread that the First Amendment was written at a time when there was no such thing as an objective press, therefore, freedom of the press isn’t about who is an objective news agency and who isn’t.
I don’t particularly care if a news organization leans left or right. I read lots of both because it’s important to know what other opinions are and why they say the things they do. But the Left is determined to smear Fox News as something other than news (as propaganda) because they are concerned their house of cards will fall if enough people pay attention to who is in the White House and which decisions are being made and why.
I call FAIR illegitimate because I personally have caught them in far too many outright untruths (which they fail to correct) to call it anything else. Yes, occasionally they have an article that I find informative, but because of their agenda, there’s a lot of cherry-picking of information with little background. I consider FAIR and Media Matters to be far closer to communications arms of the far left than anything Fox News produces. And, similarly, I consider AIM and Media Research Center to be agenda-driven as well.
24 October 2009, 11:30 amDana Pico:
Jeff wrote:
Uhhh, Dan Rather was allowed to retire early from the CBS Evening News, and four executives got fired, by CBS News! because they made a huge mistake (at best) that made CBS News’ journalistic integrity look bad. They used a forged document — one which was such an obvious forgery that independent bloggers (primarily Little Green Footballs and Powerline) were able to spot, not from the document itself but from the video images of the document — to attempt to deliberately influence the outcome of the 2004 election. CBS News tried again, by attempting to withhold a story which would have a negative impact on the Bush Administration until the Sunday immediately before the election, to not give the President and his campaign time to respond, but The New York Times broke the story early.
CBS set up an independent commission to study what had gone wrong; it was the independent commission’s report which led to the firing of Mary Mapes and the forced resignations of three executives.
I remember watching the election night coverage in 2004, flipping back and forth between CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox. NBC played it straight up, Fox was strangely hesitant — I guess that they didn’t want to seem like Bush cheerleaders, so they were very cautious with returns and conclusions — and CNN’s coverage made no real impression on me. But CBS was hysterically funny, with Dan Rather continually asking a very morose Ed Bradley if there was any realistic scenario under which John Kerry could still win once it was obvious that President Bush was going to carry Ohio. The bias was obvious, and their gloom at the impending Bush victory was pervasive — and I derived rather (pun intended) significant amusement from that.
24 October 2009, 11:46 amDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
Perry, your statement assumes that the other network news channels provide a baseline from which the truth is gauged. It is just as possible that Fox News set the baseline for accuracy, and the other networks deviated from accuracy with a bias in favor of President Obama.
24 October 2009, 11:55 amDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
Good heavens! Fox News is now “the FoxNews threat?” Was CNN the “the CNN threat” during the previous eight years? Were The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Los Angeles Times and CBS News “tantamount to an insurgency, a revolution, a coup” in their attempts to defeat President Bush and undermine his policies?
As I read your comment, it seemed as though you were saying that criticism of the President and his policies and his proposals is somehow undemocratic, “not the American/Constitutional way to change an elected government.” Well, we’re going to have congressional elections in just 12½ months, and it certainly is an appropriate time to try to change the elected government.
I certainly support the right of Glenn Beck to say it, just as I support your right to criticize Mr Beck, and quite willingly provide a public forum in which you may do so.
Don’t those of us who are opposed to President Obama and “the entire progressive policy agenda” have a right to try and frustrate them? Do we not have a right to try to rally public support in opposition to the President’s plans and goals? Or are we somehow obliged to lay down and allow President Obama and “the entire progressive policy agenda” to have their way?
24 October 2009, 12:13 pmPerry:
Dana, with FoxNews, we are not talking only about bias here, we are talking about behavior that approaches the category of insurrection, if you take Glenn Beck at face value. Parenthetically, I generally agree with your comments about CBS and CNN biases in the past.
Glenn Beck calls the President a “racist”. Even worse, he says that he is going to “take the President down”. CBS and CNN never came close to this kind of rhetoric, neither did Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow during Cheney/Bush.
I am going to take it as a ‘put on’ that you claim that Cheney/Bush made no mistakes, and laugh, for now, unless you say later that that really is your position!
But on the behavior of FoxNews, it should be obvious to any honest observer that their rhetoric has stepped way over the line, to the point, in my view, that especially Glenn Beck should called out, perhaps even be brought up in front of a judge, accused of conspiring to overthrow a President illegally. Glenn Beck has driven this situation way past a mere First Amendment issue, rather, to inciting a mob to forcefully overthrow a President of the United States. In the very least, an investigation is in order to find out if he is part of a conspiracy to “take the President down”!
Along the same lines, here is another development that has me deeply concerned:
“In addition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military is also fighting a war against the Obama administration at the White House, Seymour Hersh said in a little-noted speech at Duke University on October 13. The military is “in a war against the White House — and they feel they have Obama boxed in,” he said.
Hersh, a Pulitzer-prize winning investigative journalist who exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, sees an undercurrent of racism in the Pentagon’s dealings with the White House. “They think he’s weak and the wrong color. Yes, there’s racism in the Pentagon. We may not like to think that, but it’s true and we all know it.”"
h/t: Huffington Post
We learned several weeks ago that the McChrystal recommendation to the President was leaked to the press. Hersch goes on to say:
“Hersh considers the worsening situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan as the principal test of the Obama presidency, which will require the cooperation of the top military brass. Obama must face up to the military, Hersh said. “He’s either going to let the Pentagon run him or he has to run the Pentagon.” If he doesn’t, according to Hersh, “this stuff is going to be the ruin of his presidency.”"
There is a serious concern here if the military/Pentagon is trying to put the President in a political box.
Folks from both sides of the political divide ought to be very concerned about this. When you fold this into Cheney’s initiative to undercut the President, at least a Congressional investigation is in order.
[Comment edited to include the link to the article Perry referenced. No other changes have been made. -- DRP]
24 October 2009, 12:22 pmPerry:
Dana:“As I read your comment, it seemed as though you were saying that criticism of the President and his policies and his proposals is somehow undemocratic, “not the American/Constitutional way to change an elected government.””
No, Dana, I am not saying that. I am talking about the exact wording that Glenn Beck uses, which is a threat to overthrow the Obama government. If he was thinking about the 2010 elections, that has nothing to do with the Obama government.
My previous post explains my point, which you had not seen when you wrote your post.
24 October 2009, 12:29 pmJeff:
Perry - you know, there’s this other election that occurs in 2012…
For all the distasteful fear-mongering and demagoguery in which Beck engages, I’ve yet to hear him support armed insurrection against the U.S. government.
Dana - from what I’ve heard, Rather didn’t forge the documents himself - he was taken in by a hoax perpetrated by someone else on the left. Similar to the way Fox News and other right-wing outlets were taken in by some of the Swift Boat people, especially the doctor who claimed he treated Kerry’s injuries but, according to the official documentation, did nothing of the sort… It’s shoddy journalism, sure, but hardly a firin’ offense, especially if it was an isolated incident as this seemed to be.
And of course Rather wanted Bush to look bad. See above comments about the BS notion that is objective journalism.
24 October 2009, 12:52 pmEric:
Bingo! FAIR did a report back in the 90’s of Rush Limbaugh’s “Lies”, and it turned out most of their “Facts were differences of opinion and only a few where when he simply made an honest mistake, usually about something insignificant. Virtually none turned out to be real lies, which is doing pretty good for a guy who’s on air 15 hours a week.
Quoting FAIR as an objective source of anything is a joke, and a bad one at that.
24 October 2009, 1:07 pmEric:
Sorry, Perry, but “Weak” is citing an ultra-partisan left wing group and pretending they’re an objective, unbiased source.
24 October 2009, 1:08 pmOther Dana:
Oh Peeerrrrryyy, you keep ignoring the President’s own words: please tell us what you think of them in light of his current war on Fox:
“I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that’s part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we’re not supposed to all be in lock step here.”
24 October 2009, 1:12 pmEric:
But cherry picking is not honest argument. At best, it just leads to arguing over the source as opposed to arguing the facts. That’s one reason I rarely if ever post cites from “Right wing” sources, because I know the libs here will dismiss them out of hand, and not without good reason.
24 October 2009, 1:14 pmOther Dana:
Also, the word FAIR keeps getting bandied about but no one has defined the terms. Obviously, quite obviously the definition here varies according to one’s political persuasion. There doesn’t even seem to be a general consensus. Apparently with regard to Fox and the MSM, it’s a squishy word, malleable, movable and apparently in a state of flux.
It’s very difficult to say one’s right in such a situation. Anyone can be correct then…. well, except Conservatives because we are not allowed to be correct and should apparently always be ashamed of ourselves and our views.
24 October 2009, 1:16 pmEric:
It’s more like Obama has extended his boot. “My way or the highway” seems to be his mode of operations, whether on the Stimulus, Crap and Tax, or Health Care. He may talk a good game about “Bipartisansip”, but when the rubber hits the road, the bipartisanship simply goes out the window and he and his Dem cohorts in Congress run the show all by themselves.
24 October 2009, 1:18 pmEric:
David Brock is a crock. He tried to make it as a “Right wing” journalist, and back then the Left hated him (Mainly for his book on Anita Hill and for writing for the American Spectator. Somewhere along the line he went turncoat, and started licking the boots of the Dems while spitting in the eyes of his former allies.
David Brock is the Benedict Arnold of journalism. ‘Nuff said.
24 October 2009, 1:24 pmPerry:
Sharon:“Perry, you idiot, McCarthyism wasn’t about guilt by association, unless you meant running around with communists and being a member of the CPUSA probably made you one.”
Sharon, then you need to do some research on McCarthyism. Ask any one of a number of folks who lost their jobs after being placed on one of McCarthy’s lists, or refusing to sign a loyalty oath.
Here is a reasonable description of McCarthyism, as I remember it, from Wiki:
“McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term specifically describes activities associated with the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s and characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, “McCarthyism” soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.”
So I repeat, Sharon, with embellishment, your criticism of some selected members of Obama’s staff, without any evidence of shortcomings in their job performance, is McCarthyism in all it’s glory. You people demean people you don’t like in this manner all the time. I also call it demonization, as per Lee Atwater/Karl Rove, who made a science of the practice, which you have picked up on very nicely, as does FoxNews as well.
In other words, so what if they are Communists, or had previous associations with the Communist Party? Now I know you and others are going to accuse me of being a member of the Communist Party, as a test of my loyalty. Should being a member of the John Birch Society or the Birthers or the Tea Baggers preclude someone from serving in the government? I say no!
Regarding the guiding philosophy point you made, I agree with that, but one still needs evidence before making attacks with a shotgun approach, which is what Glenn Beck does, hoping he will hit something, to hell with the collateral damage he does.
And on the Dean piece, you are up to your usual straw man approach, making assumptions and speculations, attributed to me, then attacking them/me. There’s your “stupid” and “hypocrit”, Sharon, and it ain’t me! On Olbermann and ‘fascist’, I think he was definitely over the top on that one, although I will say that the Cheney/Bush administration did exhibit some elements of an “autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader”. Incidentally, I’ve observed some of the extremists on your side applying the same terminology to Obama. Do you speak out when you see/hear this?
Of course you and Glenn Beck have every right to oppose Obama’s policies, but when if comes down to the depths to which Glenn Beck has gone against Obama the person and the office he holds, it translates not in silencing him, but in pushing back damn hard, to the point of investigation concerning the possible promotion of insurrection, which it seems to me may well be exactly what he is doing!
24 October 2009, 1:30 pmEric:
I’d say this is proof that FOX is doing its job, and the other networks have become suck-ups for Obama. Remember the news anchor who “Got a tingly feeling up his leg” when Obama gave a speech?
I guess, in your world view, when one of your own is in power, the press are supposed to turn into a bunch of cheerleaders.
24 October 2009, 1:35 pmEric:
Another Bulls-eye! Sharon, you really need to post here more often. Your logic and cleat thinking just blows the libs away! Good work.
24 October 2009, 1:38 pmYorkshire:
Eric:
It would be helpful, especially now, to work together in Congress to make policy. Obama has extended his hand.
It’s more like Obama has extended his boot. “My way or the highway” seems to be his mode of operations, whether on the Stimulus, Crap and Tax, or Health Care. He may talk a good game about “Bipartisansip”, but when the rubber hits the road, the bipartisanship simply goes out the window and he and his Dem cohorts in Congress run the show all by themselves.
We all remember BO Bi_partisan Proclamation not too long after the election: “WE WON”, meaning the Dims, and don’t offer an opinion otherwise. I think we have been reminded of that several times here as an extension of clear Bi-Partisanship.
24 October 2009, 1:40 pmPerry:
other Dana wants a comment on Obama’s words as follows: ““I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that’s part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we’re not supposed to all be in lock step here.””
Dana, the “war” is over, and Obama has given in. FoxNews will be involved. He had to make that decision, and it was the right one, in my view.
On your comment about the word “fair”, I agree that the meaning is squishy, meaning that different sides will apply the term using different standards. That said, I don’t see how FoxNews can claim to be “Fair and Balanced” when their executives speak like this: “Fox CEO Roger Ailes described Fox News’ fight against the Obama administration as “the Alamo.” Fox’s senior vice president for news, Bill Shine, said the network was “the voice of the opposition.”"
Eric: Then you choose to attack Brock instead of debating what he has written. I don’t think that adds much to the debate.
And yes, Yorkshire, there is something to winning an election, and the political capital that accrues therewith. Ask George W Bush about that!
24 October 2009, 1:46 pmYorkshire:
Perry:
Of course you and Glenn Beck have every right to oppose Obama’s policies, but when if comes down to the depths to which Glenn Beck has gone against Obama the person and the office he holds, it translates not in silencing him, but in pushing back damn hard, to the point of investigation concerning the possible promotion of insurrection, which it seems to me may well be exactly what he is doing!
Glad to see you still believe the first amendment is in effect. But all Beck is doing is exposing the Far Left Views of the people who surround BO. BO said judge me by my advisers, and Beck has taken him up on the invite.
So far, Van Jones - 9/11 truther and Communist, Anita Dunn admires and follows Mao and a host of others with their far left views. And lets not forget the pure Saul Alinsky/Chicago Tactics used by BO. And you think he’s slightly left of center. You have your dreams, I have my nightmares.
24 October 2009, 1:47 pmEric:
Perry, I’m guessing you’ve watched little or none of FOX’s shows, and are simply relying on far left sources for your biased opinions. It’s like those Lefties who kept Rush from buying a football team by making up racist comments that he never said.
PS Calling FOX “Tyrants” is not only ridiculous (since part of the role of the press is to restrain tyranny) but shows how insecure your side is. They’re like toddlers who think they can get away with anything, and resent anyone who will hold them accountable.
24 October 2009, 1:49 pmPerry:
Yorkshire: You continue to play the guilt by association game. How about some evidence of their performance to support what Glenn Beck and you are trying to do by shooting buckshot at the White House?
24 October 2009, 1:50 pmYorkshire:
Perry:
Yorkshire: You continue to play the guilt by association game. How about some evidence of their performance to support what Glenn Beck and you are trying to do by shooting buckshot at the White House?
And Perry, you continue to live in denial. If the week before Inaugaration BO had said he wanted ALL of Bush’s team to stay on, what would you have said about that?
24 October 2009, 1:59 pmPerry:
Eric: Rush did call Obama a “racist”. I heard him say it. I didn’t hear this one, but here goes:: “LIMBAUGH: So here you have a racist. You might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”
It is true, I don’t watch FoxNews directly very often, but I see videos of segments and pieces all over the net and TV, so I have a pretty good perspective of their shilling for the GOP, and their (Glenn Beck’s) personal attacks on Obama. I think the word “tyrant” fits their (his) behavior.
24 October 2009, 2:03 pmOther Dana:
Dana, the “war” is over, and Obama has given in. FoxNews will be involved. He had to make that decision, and it was the right one, in my view.
OMG. Seriously? Because if you believe our President has “given in” to a media outlet, what the hell chance do we stand in Afghanistan? Or dealing with the real assholes of the world: Kim Jong, Castro, Chavez, Omar al-Bashir?
Oh. Wait. We already know those answers.
I was still willing to give the President a modicum benefit of the doubt. But thank you, Perry, you’ve established that if he doesn’t have the stones to stand on his words, and be honest enough to believe that freedom of speech does indeed cut both ways and that we should not have to be in lock-step, and that there is a necessary tension between people and their government, and between political parties, then he sure as hell doesn’t have what it takes to be consistently strong in the face of serious and very, very real threat.
What we have is a President who made a sound statement that recognizes freedom of speech and freedom of opinion and RESPECTED that. Now what we have is indeed a President who withered under criticism and instead of continuing to recognize freedom of speech and freedom of opinion - even when it’s bitingly critical - we have a sullen child who declares war on a media organization and bad mouths them every chance he gets. Yeah, that’s someone I want in charge of the really *important* decisions.
24 October 2009, 2:14 pmJeff:
Other Dana: we have a sullen child who declares war on a media organization and bad mouths them every chance he gets.
Welcome to the modern political climate. Everyone - left, right, center, you name it - bellyaches about the media. GWB did it. Clinton did it. Bush I did it. Reagan did it. Sadly, it’s easier than making an actual argument and, with opinions of the media what they are nowadays, frequently more effective. Both the liberal and conservative bases are riled up easily by criticisms of the “media.” And while media watchdogs and BS-callers are useful, they shouldn’t be substitutes for actual issue debate. Reporting can and will be biased, but facts and reasoned arguments still need to be front and center.
Agreed, though, it makes whoever does it looks like a baby. Sometimes I just want to send 535 diapers to Congress, and an extra few to the White House.
(What’s that old Twain quote - “politicians are like diapers: they need to be changed frequently, and for the same reason?”)
24 October 2009, 2:41 pmJeff:
Anyone can be correct then…. well, except Conservatives because we are not allowed to be correct and should apparently always be ashamed of ourselves and our views.
You know, OD, I hadn’t thought of it that way, but you’re right. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. In fact, any time a conservative speaks, they should be confronted with this:
Inconceivable, you say?
24 October 2009, 2:43 pmJeff:
Hmmm… the video didn’t work on my last comment… here’s the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_c7SbkGaLk
Serves me right for trying to make a dumb joke
[You Tube inserted by DRP. Always trying to be helpful!
]
24 October 2009, 2:44 pmPerry:
A more retro/twisted post I have not seen in some time, Dana. Reading it, trying to cut through the snark, makes for difficulty to discern where you stand.
Anyway, Dana, it’s called pushing back, a necessity to the bitter invective emanating continuously from your side.
I’m very pleased that we finally have a President, after the last eight years of “shock and awe”, “mission accomplished”, and “stay the course”, a President who is willing to admit a mistake and step up to it.
It really is revealing about your personal ideology that you view this as a weakness, when in fact it takes great strength for a person in power to admit to a mistake.
And then you neocons criticize the President for being deliberative about figuring out an appropriate strategy for Afghanistan, especially in light of the ill-defined government that a fraudulent election has produced. Doesn’t matter to you folks, just keep throwing American men and women into a battle just so we can say we are fighting terrorism. How shallow is that strategy I ask you, Dana?
24 October 2009, 2:49 pmEric:
Now you’re venturing into cuckoo-land. Beck IS opposed to this Admin, and he’s proven to be a very effective critic. And for THAT you want to put him on trial???
Perry, your views sound more like what they had in the USSR, where critics of the ruling regime were put in jail, than anything that exists under the US Constitution.
So, Perry, are you an anti-American zealot?
24 October 2009, 2:51 pmEric:
Right. So you’ve seen a few clips of FOX on some far left site/TV show, and you think that gives you an honest perspective? That’s like judging Bill Clinton solely by what you hear quoted from him on Rush or Hannity.
Seriously, you ought to watch a few hours of actual FOX programming before commenting, especially their hard news shows like Bret Baier and Chris Wallace. Indeed, O’reilly did an interview with Obama about a year ago, and while it was tough, it was eminently fair.
Stop letting your anti-conservative biases get in the way of objectivity, Perry.
24 October 2009, 3:08 pmDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
That’s quite a statement: insurrection means “the act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.” Mr Beck has said many things which are uncharitable concerning our president, but, as far as either of us know, he has not actually done anything other than investigate some of his appointees, and talk. Do you consider examining the backgrounds of government appointees and/or saying negative things about either the government in general or particular officials in particular to fit the definition “the act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government?”
24 October 2009, 3:33 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Question: Has Obama threatened to criminally prosecute Fox yet?
Question: Has Obama started tapping Fox’s phone calls yet?
Question: Has Obama illegally obtained Fox’s phone records yet?
Question: has Obama started imprisioning Fox reporters without charge yet?
As always with wingnuts, the hypocrisy is amazing. Fox is a clearly partisan propaganda outfit which has a bad habit of lying about the current President. IMHO, he is completely justified in giving them the official cold shoulder, up to and including forbidding any member of government from treating them as anything other than private citizens - but this is considerably less than the Bush Administration did to journalists.
As long as it’s right wing, you’ll kiss any ass with great glee, won’t you?
24 October 2009, 4:16 pmSharon:
But on the behavior of FoxNews, it should be obvious to any honest observer that their rhetoric has stepped way over the line, to the point, in my view, that especially Glenn Beck should called out, perhaps even be brought up in front of a judge, accused of conspiring to overthrow a President illegally. Glenn Beck has driven this situation way past a mere First Amendment issue, rather, to inciting a mob to forcefully overthrow a President of the United States. In the very least, an investigation is in order to find out if he is part of a conspiracy to “take the President down”!
I think the idea of putting someone on trial for offering their opinions in the media to be the most frightening thing anyone has ever said on this site. You truly take the cake, Perry.
Read a bit of history, Perry. As an undergrad I had to take a fascinating course on journalists and the First Amendment. Then, in law school, I took First Amendment Law, which was an even stronger version of some of the same topics. What comes out time and again is that putting people on trial and jailing them for disagreeing with the government is un-American and unconstitutional. As someone else stated, what you advocate sounds more like the old USSR. You should be ashamed.
24 October 2009, 4:33 pmJeff:
Furthermore, incitement to riot is an extremely high standard to meet. There has to be a reasonable expectation that the speaker’s words will immediately lead to violence, which I don’t think can be made for Beck. Even if Beck went as far as to say “I wish someone would violently overthrow this government” it wouldn’t be prosecutable.
Oh, and there is a conspiracy to “take the President down.” It’s called the Republican Party, and its goal is to “overthrow” this president. At the ballot box. In 2012. Perry, lest you forget, you and I were part of such a conspiracy in 2004…
24 October 2009, 5:12 pmEric:
Yes it does. One’s choice of source is relevant to any discussion. Brock, like FAIR, has an axe to grind, so their comments should be taken in that context. I mean, how would you react if I constantly cited Limbaugh or Hannity as “Objective” sources?
24 October 2009, 5:20 pmDana Pico:
24 October 2009, 5:24 pmDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
Certainly 2010 has something to do with the “Obama government.” If Republicans can significantly reduce (or eliminate) the Democrats’ congressional majorities, then they can frustrate a great many of President Obama’s programs and initiatives. The Republicans did just that in 1994, with President Clinton, and the Democrats achieved the same thing in 2006, to President Bush.
You wrote:
Brought up in front of a judge? To be brought up in front of a judge would mean that Mr Beck had been charged with an actual crime for expressing his opinion; perhaps you could tell us what crime that would be. As far as I am concerned, he could express the hope that someone would assassinate the President, and it wouldn’t be a crime, as long as he didn’t do anything such as offer money to someone to do it.
Perhaps you’ve heard of the World Can’t Wait website. Much of their archives have been scrubbed, but during the Bush Administration they were organized to force out President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Their mission statement hasn’t been updated:
If I were to use the criteria you seem to use concerning Glenn Beck, I would have said that Debra Sweet, the Director, and the whole WCW organization should have been brought up on charges. Unlike Mr Beck, who is, as far as we know now, simply advocating a position, the WCW people are organized; that makes them conspirators!
I mentioned WCW before, in an article concerning British MP George Galloway’s statement that assassinating Prime Minister Tony Blair would be morally justified. I noted that most conservatives simply looked at Mr Galloway as a kook, and the liberal sites I perused were silent on the subject. But nowhere did I suggest that Americans who’d like to see President Bush removed from office ought to be prosecuted.
Me, I don’t care how repugnant speech is: to advocate something is not, and should not be, a crime. When the Framers wrote, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” I believe that it means no law! And that’s the way it should be.
24 October 2009, 5:54 pmDana Pico:
Perry referenced this article in the Huffington Post:
Perry quoted it further, and added:
I noted, at 12:01 AM on 20 January 2009, that the illustrious Mr Hersch also told us that the Bush Administration was planning to bomb Iran. I asked, once President Bush was out of office, did the Bush Administration do what Mr Hersch claimed was going to be done? You may judge from this exactly how seriously I take Seymour Hersch’s reporting.
Former Vice President Cheney criticized President Obama’s Afghan policy; in that, he has done no more than many critics, including me; how that becomes an “initiative,” by an out-of-power politician, is beyond me. Due to Mr Cheney’s previous post, he gets a lot more publicity than does our poor site, but he has really done no differently.
24 October 2009, 6:13 pmDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
I have no objection to the notion of “pushing back.” That’s part of the give and take of politics. I do have a problem with the notion that the government ought to investigate someone for “the possible promotion of insurrection” because that person has made statements in opposition to the policies of the government.
Do you really want to criminalize speech?
24 October 2009, 6:23 pmYorkshire:
Dana asked:
Do you really want to criminalize speech?
Yes, it’s happening in Hate Speech on Campii and in other countries. Whether a law or not, it’s pretty well a reality. Just look at the anti-discrimination laws and there is a slippery slope in making a simple statement not directed at anyone. It’s practice is called Political Correctness.
24 October 2009, 6:42 pmPerry:
Dana, get real please. The fact that Bush (read Cheney) did not bomb Iran is not evidence that he did not plan to do so. I understand that you do not wish to accept Hersch’s warning, but your reason for that is mighty flimsy.
Regarding Cheney and your blog, Cheney is in a position to attempt to undermine President Obama; happy to say that your blog is not. That said, I disagree with both of you, as stated earlier. I prefer the deliberative approach, thank you very much.
Sorry, Dana, I do not see investigating a blatant threat to overthrow our government as equivalent to criminalizing free speech. Free speech is not an absolute, i.e., there are limits. I think Glenn Beck has gone over the top with his threats, and should be investigated to see if he is part of a conspiracy to do harm. Moreover, this kind of talk, although legal, is what drives some kook out there to do something really stupid. The hatred of Obama generated by extremists on the right, has resulted in something like 40 times more threats on Obama’s life. You folks need to act more responsibly than you have been to date, and stop making excuses for the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs of your party.
24 October 2009, 11:29 pmYorkshire:
Perry:
Regarding Cheney and your blog, Cheney is in a position to attempt to undermine President Obama;
I remember very, very early in the W administration Bubba offering all kinds of unsolicited advice, in public for W. Carter added his 2 cents too.
24 October 2009, 11:40 pmSharon:
That’s the worst logic I’ve ever heard. So, the fact that Perry hasn’t raped and murdered a 12-year-old girl isn’t proof that he isn’t planning to do so. I mean, that’s all right with you, right?
Worse, you don’t use the deliberative approach to anything, Perry. You want people jailed for having the audacity to criticize the POTUS. That’s disgusting.
24 October 2009, 11:42 pmPerry:
Eric: Go right ahead and cite Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh; I think their rhetoric would be easy to debate by sourcing factual information to refute them. On the other hand, David Brock’s statements are factual, which is why you don’t like him, since you like to rely on opinion and tend to be adverse to facts (no cites, for example).
24 October 2009, 11:46 pmPerry:
Sharon: As usual, you totally distort what I said into something that you know well I did not mean. I stand by my words based on the specific case of Glenn Beck, upon which you pull your usual straw man fallacy and attack, as per your made up definition of logic. Sharon, it isn’t!
24 October 2009, 11:52 pmPerry:
Yorkshire: I am talking about Cheney, not Carter. If you want to talk about Carter, bring up some examples and let’s talk about Carter. More importantly, Cheney is a war mongering neocon, whereas Carter is a peace mongering liberal. I choose Carter!
24 October 2009, 11:56 pmOther Dana:
Dana, the “war” is over, and Obama has given in. FoxNews will be involved. He had to make that decision, and it was the right one, in my view.
Perry, I just got home and re-read your original comment and I do think I originally misread it: I must have read it too quickly because I did entirely miss your “Fox News will be involved.” My apologies.
With that though, I don’t know if the “war” is over or not, and neither do you. All we know is that in this one instance, he backed down but don’t you think the fact the every other major media outlet collectively balked and he knew that was a stand he couldn’t win against? If he truly felt it would have been ethically wrong to box out Fox, he wouldn’t have had a hand in it in the first place.
I am still appalled by our President taking one minute of time to declare a public war on a new outlet, let alone have an entire administration jump on the bandwagon. While other presidents certainly had their issues with media, this administration has taken it to extremes.
You mentioned above that Obama has given in - but what a shame he started this in the first place considering how many deadly serious issues there are for him to be dealing with. Why even take the time and energy away from the critical issues to deal with an entity he thinks so little of? Why on earth would he even care what they do? If they’re irrelevant, or just an arm of the GOP (which I don’t buy), or an entertainment outfit, why does he even care?????
The President should expect to receive criticism - President Obama even stated that himself. He at least seemed to understand that. Now, with his declared war (in spite of changing his mind once re Fox - although why did he even try to keep them out in the first place?, he continues to remind us that there is no room for criticism of him, and certainly if one dares to, there will be a serious price to pay. I continue to get the sense that he is absolutely thin skinned and in shock that one would deign to treat him in such a way.
25 October 2009, 12:04 amSharon:
As usual, you totally distort what I said into something that you know well I did not mean. I stand by my words based on the specific case of Glenn Beck, upon which you pull your usual straw man fallacy and attack, as per your made up definition of logic. Sharon, it isn’t!
Sadly, you don’t even see that whether you base your opinion on “the specific case of Glenn Beck” or on the collective behavior of commentators, you are advocating jailing people for expressing opinions you dislike. That is un-American.
25 October 2009, 12:34 amJohn Hitchcock:
Perry wrote:
Upon reading his diatribe and anti-constitutional wishes, I ask the same question regarding Perry.
25 October 2009, 1:00 amOther Dana:
Seriously, someone actually scolded another commenter here about the debate needing to be about facts and then context (as opposed to rhetoric), and then further states that Fox is a “threat”, and mentions Beck and insurrection in the same breath? LOL!
25 October 2009, 1:06 amPhoenician in a time of Romans:
With that though, I don’t know if the “war” is over or not, and neither do you. All we know is that in this one instance, he backed down but don’t you think the fact the every other major media outlet collectively balked and he knew that was a stand he couldn’t win against? If he truly felt it would have been ethically wrong to box out Fox, he wouldn’t have had a hand in it in the first place.
As it turns out, the whole affair was yet another lie from Fox - and you dupes bought it.
Check here:
i, Fox did not ask for an interview with Feinberg.
ii, The White House sets up a pool camera for those channels that asked for an interview.
iii, The networks notice Fox isn’t there, ask the White House if they can be included, and the White House says “okay”.
iv, Fox lies and says they were deliberately excluded and the other networks stood up for them.
v, The other networks know Fox is making this shit up.
vi, Wingnuts listen to Fox, blow this up into an epic confrontation.
People - you’ve been had. You’ve been duped. You’re useful idiots for Fox’s propaganda.
25 October 2009, 2:09 amDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
Our military works on contingency plans all along; one of the things Michael Scheuer complained about in Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, was that the US didn’t have an on-the-shelf plan ready to go for a threat from Afghanistan. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the military to update existing plans concerning a situation in Iran, but it would not have been a real news story. What Mr Hersch wrote was about something more — and the evidence is that what he warned us was going to happen, didn’t happen.
Our military have respect for the chain of command drummed into them from day one of boot camp. THere will always be a few among them for whom this doesn’t take, but our armed forces simply aren’t like those of Paraguay; to earn rank, you must be professional, above all.
Richard Cheney is an out-of-power politician; he can get attention for his statements, but his ability to undermine President Obama and his policies at this point would be solely dependent upon his powers of persuasion, and those are perfectly legal to use.
I’m trying to picture what you would have said had I written something like this concerning the Democrats in 2005 or 2006. I would have been called all sorts of things, with the word fascist thrown around with abandon. Glenn Beck ran his mouth off, telling us he was going to do something almost certainly well beyond his ability to do, and you want to investigate it as an actual threat?
As for “Free speech is not an absolute, i.e., there are limits,” I admit that the government has imposed limits, but I don’t think that such would be constitutional. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is the old-saw example, but it isn’t the speech that is the problem, but the reaction to the speech: it causes a real threat of danger from trampling. Yelling “Fire!” in an empty theater wouldn’t meet the standard, because there could be no trampling victims, nor would yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater in which everyone had been notified that the yell was going to occur, and the danger of trampling already eliminated.
Libel and slander are also restricted, not for what they say, but for the harm that libel and slander do to another person. It isn’t speech that is the problem, but sometimes there are situations in which someone must bear the consequences of his speech.
And thus we come to Glenn Beck. He said that he was going to take down this president. It was really the statement of a blowhard, in that he has virtually no power to fulfill his stated goal; what actual consequences have flowed from his statement for which he should be held responsible?
25 October 2009, 8:37 amDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
In 1994, North Korea expelled investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and started to threaten to process spent nuclear fuel into weapons grade material. President Clinton ordered sanctions, but also sent former President Carter to North Korea, supposedly on a “private” mission, to give President Kim Il Sung a way to back down without losing face. Mr Carter exceeded his authority in negotiating and making concessions, and then outlined a treaty which he announced on CNN without the permission of the Clinton White House as a way to force the US into action.1
In plain language, former President Carter actually did undermine President Clinton’s foreign policy, taking a step to try to force his hand. That explains why neither President Clinton nor President Bush ever so utilized former President Carter again.
Later, as Mr Carter noted himself in his own book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he went jogging in East Jerusalem, and protested the security measures taken for his safety, by both the Secret Service and the Israeli Defense Forces. He could well have been seized by Palestinian terrorists; his own stupidity created a situation in which the Palestinians could have seized a former President of the United States as a hostage.
Dick Cheney, on the other hand, has done nothing but talk. To me, Mr Carter has done a lot more to undermine his successors than anyone else.
_______________________________
- Marion V. Creekmore, A Moment of Crisis: Jimmy Carter, The Power of a Peacemaker, and North Korea’s Nuclear Ambitions (2006). [back]
25 October 2009, 8:55 amDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
This is the fundamental point of our disagreement. I am defending freedom of speech, where you think that doing so somehow defends what some people have said. There is a real difference between defending what someone has said, and his right to say it.
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck will be held accountable by their listeners. If their listeners like their shows, they’ll continue to tune in, and if they don’t. they’ll stop listening.
25 October 2009, 9:01 amSharon:
People - you’ve been had. You’ve been duped. You’re useful idiots for Fox’s propaganda.
I actually saw this story early yesterday afternoon on Mememorandum, where I look for a lot of what is happening on the blogs. By early yesterday evening, the story was gone, but all the others stayed. Admittedly, lots of stuff can have a short shelf life on Memeorandum, if there’s lots of news on the day, but this story was up for about four hours, then gone. By 5 p.m. Eastern time, the story was pulled, while other things from the same time period and earlier (including many other pieces regarding the White House feud with Fox News) remained. Now, why would that be?
My conclusion is that the explanation printed by a leftwing blog, which sounded fishy to me and amazingly convenient, looked that way to enough others that they didn’t bother discussing it. Because the question you have to ask yourself is this: if the explanation given on TPMDC is correct, why is it completely unsourced and why was the story pulled so quickly? It seems to me that such a bombshell would have been up as long as the orignial story, wouldn’t it? Moreover, why wouldn’t the White House have issued a defense on Friday when this story went viral, as opposed to sitting around waiting for a blogger to ask questions and release the story Saturday, when fewer people were paying attention? It’s not like this White House isn’t media savvy, taking bodyblows for no apparent reason like the Bush administration did. This is an administraiton which has been quick to defend itself from even the slightest criticism. It’s hard to believe that such a “lie” as this would have been left completely without response for close to 48 hours.
It appears to me that the “useful idiots” are those that want to believe what was widely reported to have happened is not what happened.
25 October 2009, 9:37 amPerry:
Sharon, you did it again: “Sadly, you don’t even see that whether you base your opinion on “the specific case of Glenn Beck” or on the collective behavior of commentators, you are advocating jailing people for expressing opinions you dislike.”
Show me where I said this, Sharon. You keep making stuff up, as is your mantra. What I did say is that Glenn Beck should be investigated, because of his threat to take our President down.
And it is here, Dana, where we disagree, not re Limbaugh, but re Beck. Limbaugh says he wants Obama to fail. Ok, let the listeners decide. But “taking the President down” takes the rhetoric to a new level that should be investigated, in my opinion.
We don’t take Presidents down in this country, we vote them out of office, or impeach them using the proper process, if they are alleged to have broken the law.
“Taking a President down” implies breaking our laws to do so, therefore should be investigated. This is not the proverbial yelling fire in a crowded theater, rather, this is threatening to bomb the theater, in my view.
25 October 2009, 9:37 amPerry:
Sharon: Your response to Phoenician’s post on the FoxNews exclusion story is your tortured attempt to continue the FoxNews fiction on this story. However, this fiction is dispelled by a FoxNews reporter himself, Major Garrett, whose explanation you need to hear. You will find said explanation, right here, which is the link that Phoenician presented, which I doubt very much that you checked it. Well please check it out, then let us know your response to it.
PS: Sharon, I do appreciate you link to ‘Memorandum’, an interesting site which I immediately bookmarked.
25 October 2009, 9:55 amSharon:
Show me where I said this, Sharon.
It gets tiresome when you don’t even know what you write, let alone what anyone else does.
Your hyperbolic reading of the term “take the President down” is idiotic. Beck used the same phrase in discussing Democrats looking for something they could use to “take down George W. Bush.”
Oddly, no one was screaming that he was wanting to assassinate President Bush. Accusing people of conspiracy to overthrow the government is a very serious charge that takes more than one commentator yelling about the POTUS. Unlike you, Perry, in this country, we take freedom of speech very seriously.
25 October 2009, 9:57 amPerry:
Sharon, stop twisting and spinning. Being brought before a judge is not equivalent to being jailed, so your memory is the faulty one, Sharon, in this case. And I did say that “at the very least and investigation is in order”, didn’t I Sharon?
And on my “hyperbolic reading”, let us have the investigation to find out about that.
Then your quote of Beck on Bush is not germane to my concern, because Beck specifically refers to impeachment, a legal procedure for removing a person from office, including of course a President. Wrt Obama, there is not that reference in Beck’s statement. Nice try, Sharon.
I am only calling for an investigation, which I think is in order.
Would you like to have someone assassinate Obama, Sharon?
Shall we wait until after it happens to investigate?
25 October 2009, 10:10 amSharon:
Sharon: Your response to Phoenician’s post on the FoxNews exclusion story is your tortured attempt to continue the FoxNews fiction on this story. However, this fiction is dispelled by a FoxNews reporter himself, Major Garrett, whose explanation you need to hear. You will find said explanation, right here, which is the link that Phoenician presented, which I doubt very much that you checked it. Well please check it out, then let us know your response to it.
Again, Perry has a reading comprehension problem. I saw the TPMDC story on Memeorandum. How would I know the story was unsourced without having read it, Perry? More to the point, if this explanation, which would completely pwn Fox News, were correct, why didn’t the White House issue it Friday when the story broke? Why was it not on every blog on Friday, not Saturday afternoon when traffic is low?
Even the clip of Major Garrett doesn’t “dispell” anything. He says he was originally excluded, but the press pool protested and then Fox News was included. That doesn’t in any way contradict the original story that Fox News was originally excluded and that such a move was unprecedented.
I understand that you want to belive BO would never, ever, ever do anything childish, stupid, thinskinned or self-centered, but even the video that you claim backs up the TPMDC story doesn’t say what you wish it did.
25 October 2009, 10:14 amSharon:
stop twisting and spinning. Being brought before a judge is not equivalent to being jailed, so your memory is the faulty one, Sharon, in this case. And I did say that “at the very least and investigation is in order”, didn’t I Sharon?
Perry, investigating people for expressing their opinions is despicable and against the First Amendment. There’s a long history of fascist governments doing this sort of thing. It’s called silencing people. That’s what you’re advocating, you worm.
25 October 2009, 10:16 amJohn Hitchcock:
I want to take President Obama down. And in that endeavor I plan on continuing to spread the word about his anti-Constitutional activities until election day 2012. I don’t want to take him out, though. We’re not on speaking terms and I’d rather save my restaurant money for someone more honorable.
25 October 2009, 10:18 amSharon:
Then your quote of Beck on Bush is not germane to my concern, because Beck specifically refers to impeachment, a legal procedure for removing a person from office, including of course a President. Wrt Obama, there is not that reference in Beck’s statement. Nice try, Sharon.
There is no difference in the wording Beck used regarding GWB than the language you object to. The person trying to spin it is you, Perry. The only difference is at the end–after he talked about “taking GWB down”–where he mentions something is an impeachable offense. You are desperate to find a distinction here when there is none.
25 October 2009, 10:18 amPerry:
Dana, re Carter, I had forgotten about that incident. Carter clearly did step over the line, which I suppose is easier for a former President to do, perhaps unconsciously unwilling to admit that the power is no longer theirs to exercise. Whatever, you are correct, Carter was clearly wrong.
However, in my mind, that incident does not define Carter’s post-Presidency. He is regarded globally as a motivator for peace and as an advocate for democracy and free, untainted elections. His focus on the Israel-Palestine situation has been more even-handed than our own government has been, from Reagan on, in my view. In spite of his shortcomings as President, I am a great admirer of former President Jimmy Carter.
25 October 2009, 10:26 amPerry:
Sharon: “There is no difference in the wording Beck used regarding GWB than the language you object to.”
Sharon, Sharon, Sharon, OMG, I specifically pointed out the difference. If you don’t see it, that’s on you Sharon.
Let us let the readers decide. There is nothing else I can say, nor can you!
Sharon: “…, you worm”
That’s really weak. You are going off the deep end, Sharon. OK, so you don’t agree with me, that’s fine. Let it be at that.
25 October 2009, 10:29 amJeff:
I don’t want to take him out, though. We’re not on speaking terms and I’d rather save my restaurant money for someone more honorable.
Perhaps a beer summit is in order…
25 October 2009, 10:49 amJohn Hitchcock:
Perry’s words:
I’m not allowed to write what I think.
Writing what I think makes me dangerous.
Nope, freedom of speech, not so much.
Contrary viewpoints to his should not be voiced.
And there’s even more evidence of his authoritarian mindset, a mindset he decries when he imagines it in others.
25 October 2009, 11:41 amJohn Hitchcock:
And, Perry, your site-to-site “let the reader decide” is a foolish gambit on your part. You lose.
25 October 2009, 11:44 amDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
Did Glenn Beck imply that, or did you infer it? To “take someone down” is a slang expression which can have a whole host of meanings; it isn’t very precise. You’ve surely heard of taking someone down a notch (or peg), normally meaning to humble someone who is unjustifiably haughty. Mr Hitchcock wrote:
To take someone out has multiple meanings; Mr Hitchcock used it in the terms of a date, but to “take someone out” has also meant to kill him.
This is what happens when it comes to the use of slang; I think that you’re overly concerned about Mr Beck’s use of a slang term.
I would imagine that if the Secret Service thought it really was a threat, they’d be investigating it quietly. But the people who actually attempt assassinations are usually pretty quiet about it.
25 October 2009, 11:48 amDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
I will grant that many across the globe see Mr Carter as “a motivator for peace and as an advocate for democracy and free, untainted elections,” and I’d guess that he sees himself that way. Unfortunately, I also see him as extremely naïve. In this story, Donald Douglas quoted from this article in the newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation:
That, to me, is sophomoric logic: it was written under the completely ethnocentric notion that the people of Afghanistan, once freed from the evil American occupation, would quickly seek to form a government in a free, fair and democratic way, when the reality is that, if we withdraw, one group or other, the one most dedicated to the fight and which procures the most firepower, will seize power.
Mr Carter, who really ought to know better, still seems to operate from such a philosophy. In his doubtlessly heartfelt desire for peace, he seems to have forgotten that there are still plenty of men who are much more interested in power and in victory. Being well-intentioned does not make one right, and frequently provides the paving material for the road to an unpleasant destination.
25 October 2009, 12:04 pmEric:
Perry, you’re really going off the deep end. It’s gotten to the point where you can’t tolerate ANY criticism of your god and Lord Obama, and in the case of Glenn Beck, you actually want to have the government start an inquisition on him!
I suspect you would have fit in well with the KBG back in the old USSR.
25 October 2009, 12:15 pmEric:
You are kinder than I am. I see Carter as the classic appeaser, a bootlick who thinks sucking up to evil is the way to spread peace and virtue in the world. It’s no wonder Reagan kicked his ass and went on to win two landslide terms!
25 October 2009, 12:21 pmEric:
I don’t know how “Factual” they are, since he quotes no sources and provides no context.
25 October 2009, 12:24 pmEric:
I’m guessing you’ve rarely if ever listened to either Rush or Beck, since your loony rants about them seem to have come from some loony left wing site or show.
Seriously, you should watch Beck, then decide for yourself what he’s really about. For example, I think Keith Olbermann is a self-impressed, pompous blowhard, but then I’ve watched enough of his show to have come to this opinion fairly.
25 October 2009, 12:28 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Anti-semites love Carter. Israel, not so much.
My peanut has a first name, it’s J-i-m-m-y.
My peanut has a second name, it’s C-a-r-t-e-r.
(I forget this line)
And if you ask my why, I’ll say
‘Cause Jimmy Carter has a way
With screwing up the USA.
I remember singing that all while Carter was POTUS.
25 October 2009, 12:29 pmDana Pico:
Your always helpful editor has found the line Mr Hitchcock forgot:
I think it would have fit the jingle better had it been:
It went to the tune of an Oscar Meyer commercial that I can still remember, and will, unfortunately, be running through my mind for the rest of the day now that Mr Hitchcock has brought it up!
25 October 2009, 12:44 pmDana Pico:
Mr Hitchcock wrote:
I don’t think that Mr Carter is an anti-Semite; if you read his books — I’ve read two of them — it’s clear that he believes that Israel should have a right to exist in peace and security, and that Israel has and ought to have a special relationship with the United States.
The trouble is that his policies, both as president and in his activities after that, have clearly favored the Palestinian position: he sees the Palestinians as a mistreated and oppressed people. In his zeal to do good, Mr Carter sees the obvious solution, the two-state solution, as inevitable. Trouble is, he has never gotten a grasp on the idea that there are a lot of people — primarily Palestinians, but some Israelis as well — who do not agree, and who are looking for military victory rather than peace. Mr Carter did lament that Jews, a traditionally Democratic voting bloc, abandoned him in the 1980 election.
One semantic note: a Saudi prince I knew in college — hardly impressive, since there are thousands of Saudi princes — told me that the term anti-Semitic referriung to being anti-Jewish is not really appropriate, since the Arabs are a Semitic people as well.
25 October 2009, 12:52 pmblubonnet:
Expecting anyone on the Right-wing to actually see with objective honesty might be asking too much. But the fact that Bush did at least as much as Obama, not to mention the fact that, like Soviet Russia, stories were fabricated for support of the illegal, dishonest, invasion of a country killing hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/maddow-and-olbermann-right-wing-freak-out
Also, creating an insurgency, and bringing terrorists to a country where none existed prior, killing yet many more.
Bombing and torturing innocent civilians. I’d call that tyranny. Oh, by the way, innocent Muslim Americans, were also hauled off to be tortured. Another thing Americans (even non-Muslim) that opposed the war, that were over there were also tortured.
The liars like Beck and Limbaugh creating blithering mashed potato brains of our public are really dangerous to this democracy, or what used to be democracy. Fascist gas bags!
25 October 2009, 5:22 pmblubonnet:
Wake up to what the thinking part of the public know.
http://www.newshounds.us/
25 October 2009, 5:25 pmSharon:
Blu steps in with the nuttiness right on queue.
25 October 2009, 7:00 pmblubonnet:
Nuttiness by your definition, I will take as a compliment.
I’m quite sure you hadn’t the guts to look at any links. Go back to your Disney world. Reality is too difficult to accept, because you wouldn’t have the integrity to honestly consider all perspectives, and recognition of what has taken place, from Bush to Obama. Try showing just one iota of strength of character. Integrity? I’m not holding my breath. Go off and pretend that only the corporate “news” that your party represents has anything but scumbags corporate shills, and liars. FOX didn’t get the reference as FAUX news without earning it.
25 October 2009, 7:47 pmSharon:
Lord, now we have Blu giving us the CPUSA POV. No, I’m not going to look at your videos from Crooks and Liars, 9/11 Truthers or any other B.S. site. I’ve told you that you need to take your nuttiness elsewhere. And yeah, Fox News got smeared because liberals got the vapors that there was a news network they don’t control. Or is it the corporations? Maybe aliens? Gosh, it’s so hard to keep the conspiracies straight.
25 October 2009, 8:41 pmblubonnet:
Yeah, you’re the judge, jury and executioner. No need to hear the other side. That says it all.
I couldn’t be insulted by one unworthy of a scintilla of intellectual respect.
Any exchange is a waste of time, because you have the most mentally detrimental learning disorder around. It’s called “knowing everything”. Your credibility therefore, proven in yet another moment of “debate” to be a fermented brew of rotting fruit. Flying gnats included. Worthless, and unhealthy to ingest.
26 October 2009, 1:07 amJohn Hitchcock:
CPUSA deserves zero respect of any sort. Seriously, who in their right mind would trust the Communist Party in this country?
26 October 2009, 1:14 amblubonnet:
Why didn’t it matter when FAUX noose, and Bush were having private parties? FOX news is discredited, I’d bet among people from around the world. Whatever “abuses” might be they considered, Bush’s bold, arrogant disregard for any ethical or even legal structures, shoving them aside, as his dirty secrets were bleached out of “reality”. You’ll disagree of course, because you only catch the “news” from the biASSed FAUX, a Frankenstein of journalism.
I guess what is going on now, is that like rowdy children that heard others talking bad about them, when it long been the case, tantrums follow from that child. Only children’s lies and tantrums, are forgivable, not FOX’s. They are delinquents of journalistic standards. Science becomes marginalized. I needn’t go on. All corporate interests, in the guise of the people’s interest.
Since I’ve not followed this thread from the beginning, and I’m not sure I want to, getting caught up in this would not be an honest way to converse here. Later.
26 October 2009, 3:00 amJohn Hitchcock:
Again, I must ask who in their right mind would trust the Communist Party? Obviously blu trusts the Communist Party. But who in their right mind would trust the Communist Party?
26 October 2009, 3:33 amDNW:
It’s the American government.
Obama is just an office holder.
You want to dance around the altar of Obaalma, feel free.
Just don’t expect everyone else to, or to keep respectfully quiet as you do.
26 October 2009, 12:52 pmEric:
Another kook site heard from.
26 October 2009, 1:12 pmEric:
Then why are their ratings so much higher than CNN or MSNBC?
26 October 2009, 1:47 pmEric:
Blu, the only person who claims to “Know everything” here is you. Especially when it comes to 9/11. You keep carrying on with your kooky conspiracy theories and linking your favorite kooksites and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
26 October 2009, 1:50 pmblubonnet:
All of a sudden, I’m a Communist? You are out of your friggin minds. End of conversation. I’d have better luck communicating with my nieghbor’s dog. She’s much more intelligent.
26 October 2009, 2:42 pmSharon:
Well, if you aren’t a communist, you need to stop using their language when you rant against “the corporations” and all that stuff.
26 October 2009, 5:47 pm